|
Q: How did you go about creating a chronological sequence by which to date fine string instruments as measured against climatic events visible in alpine softwoods? A:
Climate imparts a certain
influence in tree growth that results in patterns of wide and narrow rings
(see above). If a tree, obtained from a particular climate zone, is used
to make an object, such as a violin, then we should be able to use a
reference chronology from that climate zone to date the violin. The
problem is that we're not exactly sure where the trees used to make the
Cremona instruments grew. We have no reference chronology for the
"Forest of the Violins" in Trentino,
Italy, where the wood likely originated. So we use the nearest
reference chronologies from the high Alps, with many of these trees
representing treeline conditions where temperature is especially sensitive
for tree growth. Q: What are your findings about the date of the wood used for the top of the Messie violin? A: First, we dated the Archinto (label date of 1696) against our newly developed master reference chronology for the high Alps, then we successfully dated the Kux/Castlebarco (label date of ca. 1720), also using the reference chronology, as well as that from the Archinto. The Archinto dated from 1526-1686 while the Kux/Castlebarco dated to 1557-1684. We used these two chronologies to date the Messiah. The dating was conclusive both graphically and statistically, against both instruments. The Messiah has tree rings that date from 1577-1687, dates contemporary with Stradivari. I point out, though, that I can only assign dates to tree rings; I do not assign makers to violins. Sadly, some people refuse to believe the dendrochronological dating of the instrument because, as they are correct in stating, some statistical error does exist. However, this statistical error is extremely minute and inconsequential; i.e., the level of confidence (the inverse of margin of error) is sky high that these are the dates for the Messiah. Q:
Do localized micro-climates affect
overall dendrochronology data? A: I can answer all these questions together. Yes, microclimates vary considerably in the Alps, which is why we could not date the Messiah directly against any master reference chronology. I hypothesize that the wood for the Messiah did not come from anywhere in the high Alps in close proximity to the 16 sites used in the master chronology. Otherwise, the Messiah would have dated without a problem. However, in my opinion, the wood for the Messiah came from a location that was lower in elevation, perhaps on the lower slopes of the Alps, where a different climate regime exists. What we needed was a reference chronology for between the high Alps and the location from where the wood for the Messiah came. The trees used for the Archinto and Kux/Castlebarco, I feel, occupied such a central location, and recorded some properties of the climate regime at high elevations, as well as some properties of the climate regime at lower locations from where the Messiah's wood came. This was a critical finding of our study. To help future studies, we really need a chronology from lower elevations in the Italian Alps, preferably from the Forest of the Violins itself! Q: Have you dated any other string instruments using the dendrochronological means used for the Messie violin? A: In addition to those three: the Messiah, the Archinto, the Kux/Castlebarco, we also dated the ex-Cipriani Potter, a 1683 Strad at the Ashmolean Museum. We found the rings dated to 1594-1673, which is consistent with the label date of 1683. Q: What range of degree of statistical certainty did you achieve with your data and measurements? A: Very high. The chances of obtaining some of the t-values we obtained simply by chance are about 1 in 10,000, i.e. we have a level of confidence of 99.99% with a margin of statistical error of 0.01%. Q: What is the commonly accepted range for statistical margin for error in dendrochronology? A: As in most studies, we become "interested" in a date if it has a level of confidence of 95%, or a margin of error of 5%. This would equal a t-value of 2.0. (Note, for comparison: most medical studies have a margin of error of 10%; i.e., the medicine you may be taking was based on a study with a margin of error of 10%.) However, we raise the bar here: we really don't become "very interested" until a t-value reaches 3.5, which has a margin of error of about .01% as mentioned above. All our reported t-values were above 3.5. We even had one t-value of 7.0 and the level of confidence here is astronomical. Q: Do you have doubt about your findings on the Messie violin? A: None whatsoever. ### S.H.
|
|
Marketplace CD
Review Message
Board Home
Auctions
Scandal
Essay Archive
Contact |